Parking eye won cambridge case

Bantex_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

And the retailer would have very few customers.

Seems like another helpful suggestion from the forum's very own Job's comforter - just like the suggestion to billy11 yesterday, that he sue the magnetic ticket holder manufacturer after his parking permit fell off the dashboard. :rotfl:

I believe that the Sale of Goods Act can cover consequential loss caused by a faulty product. So why is it not a fair suggestion?

bod1467

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/explained

See section 4, subsection Consequential Loss. (SOGA s.14(3) I think relates to this). Whether this argument could be extended to a parking ticket is another matter - it would likely need to go to LBA/Court for the consumer to have a chance of the retailer paying up.

carandbike

bazster wrote: »

No, you are wrong. The RK is irrelevant. The RK can only be liable for charges incurred by the driver. If there were two separate drivers then neither incurred a charge hence the RK is not liable for anything.

I know cameras can be flawed and agree with what you say, however my point being it is not right that someone that has done no wrong has to justify themselves to a private company that they have no direct association with.

It's all well and good saying ppc's have to prove things against drivers/keepers when we all know from experience it is us that are guilty until we prove otherwise, by providing insurance certs. receipts, pay and display tickets etc. You may disagree but that is how I felt and others seem to from their initial posts.

If it were otherwise we would still be able to ignore alleged breaches and just tell ppc's to prove their case.

carandbike

ColliesCarer wrote: »

I suppose they could argue that they could potentially lose a contract if they do not maintain/improve the churn rate of vehicles, even though their systems don't actually achieve that, so that the landowner could possibly benefit from increased sales but the value of that for one vehicle overstaying would be negligible.

Any thoughts?

My first pcn was from this very retail park. Every shop manager or assistant manager I spoke to told me they wanted at least 3 hours parking and not the 2 currently in place. I was told it used to be 3 hours, but I would guess PE changed that. Each manager except one, also told me they had a "hotline" to PE by phone and in at least one case, fax, where they could send details of customers to exempt them from a pcn. One shop has customers there for most of the day choosing furniture and fittings and use this facility on a regular basis, so I was told. Also the gym customer get 4 hours parking there instead of the 2.

nigelbb

I too know well the Riverside Retail Park Chelmsford. Traffic is often snarled up because as it's difficult to exit onto a busy road. There are also in my estimation too few parking spaces for the number of shops &/or types of shops. There are certainly far fewer parking spaces than you would find at a typical out of town retail park. I blame the developers for their greed and the council for giving planning permission for a retail development with inadequate parking. It's near enough to the town centre that it's sensible (& environmentally friendly) to park there visit those shops then walk to the town centre shops. Traffic in the centre of Chelmsford is usually such a pain that once parked you don't want to crawl through the traffic then park to visit one shop then set off to crawl through the traffic to park to visit another shop.

There is no other easy free parking in the centre of Chelmsford so the solution for parking problems at Riverside Retail Park would be to have pay parking with entry barriers & pay on exit with reimbursement of part of the parking fee for 'genuine shoppers'. The current situation just has thousands of pounds filling the pockets of PE rather than being spent with the retailers in Riverside Retail Park or elsewhere in Chelmsford town centre. Shoppers who get 'fined' for shopping at Riverside Retail Park are hardly likely to return. PE must be coining it as they are hardly likely to pay £1000 per week for their fishing licence if they weren't making that sum back several times over.

ColliesCarer

carandbike wrote: »

My first pcn was from this very retail park. Every shop manager or assistant manager I spoke to told me they wanted at least 3 hours parking and not the 2 currently in place. I was told it used to be 3 hours, but I would guess PE changed that. Each manager except one, also told me they had a "hotline" to PE by phone and in at least one case, fax, where they could send details of customers to exempt them from a pcn. One shop has customers there for most of the day choosing furniture and fittings and use this facility on a regular basis, so I was told. Also the gym customer get 4 hours parking there instead of the 2.

Thanks C&B,
Good point - and a counter argument too - because the retailers can also benefit from the customer staying longer - as in the case of the furniture and carpet shop you mention.

Quite a lot of posters who got their pcn's in retail parks where the retailers are tenants have found the retailers to be very unhappy about the negative impact on their business the parking company's inadequate time limits and punitive charges are having.
But in those cases the retailers seemed to have little or no say in getting tickets cancelled or in defining the parking "terms" which were imposed by managing agents/landowners who brought in the parking company.

ifb-online

Are all Parking Eye customers leechers? I'm a small business tenant in a location where we share parking space with a pub. There is train station across the road. The pub and our landlords operate a barrier system but people still get through and when the pub is open during the day parking space for our businesses is inundated by visitors we have no control over. You should see how many people park, blocking others and basically being totally inconsiderate. The landlord is now planning to install a Parking Eye system. It's nothing to do with profiteering - we want our parking back.

nigelbb

ifb-online wrote: »

I'm a small business tenant in a location where we share parking space with a pub.

Surely this is your problem? I don't see how bringing in PE will solve that. In the old days when pubs weren't open all day you would have had respite in the afternoons.

bazster

carandbike wrote: »

I know cameras can be flawed and agree with what you say, however my point being it is not right that someone that has done no wrong has to justify themselves to a private company that they have no direct association with.

It's all well and good saying ppc's have to prove things against drivers/keepers when we all know from experience it is us that are guilty until we prove otherwise, by providing insurance certs. receipts, pay and display tickets etc. You may disagree but that is how I felt and others seem to from their initial posts.

If it were otherwise we would still be able to ignore alleged breaches and just tell ppc's to prove their case.

If you are saying that the law is one thing, but having to defend yourself against trumped-up charges is quite another, then I agree with you entirely.

liseylou

Bantex wrote: »

That is a different point though, there does not seem to be a "no return same day" term.

My point is more that a land owner (or their agents) should be able to run their own property as they wish and anyone using agrees to abide by the terms (as long as made clear and evident before deciding to use the premises).

PRECISELY!!!
Provided the T&Cs are made clear!!!! On PE ANPR pay and display car parks, WHERE in the T&C's does it state that the clock starts ticking the moment you ENTER the car park, NOT when you purchase the ticket and with no relevance to the EXPIRY time of such ticket!!!